vendredi 18 mai 2007

Sitayana

I have decided to publish a personal correspondence - just as a means to show how one can protest democratically against perceived defamation by an artist. One should not resort to arson, hooliganism or legislation to curb the freedom of speech of an artist. Art and culture require no patrolling of policemen. Instead, we should always remember the famous adage "Satyaméva Jayathé - truth always wins".

The following is my correspondence with Nina Paley, a brilliant illustrator from USA. She is the creator of Sitayana - a very cute comic on the story of Sita. I urge all of you to visit her website. My contention was against her portrayal of the character of Rama.

hi ninaI am very glad to see this perspective on ramayana. Your drawings are also super-cute.

But I've a fear that your impression with the character of Rama may be premature. Do write to me if you have any questions.

Ramayana is filled with idealism. Each character has a specific ideal attribute. As you have rightly pointed out, Hanuman is the ideal servant and Sita is the ideal wife. Lakshman is the ideal brother (which you did not mention). Now, is Rama the ideal husband ? Definitely not. Living with such a husband is an ordeal.Most women would use stronger terms than "jerk" to such a husband. :)

Rama is the ideal son. He has unparalleled devotion to his parents. Also, in ancient India, the motherland is considered to be the same as the parents. So, Rama has an unparalleled devotion to his motherland (Ayodhya) Rama lives his life, not for the sake of himself, but for the sake of his parents.

All his actions are explicable from this point of view. His exile in the forest, his battle with Ravana and his estrangement with Sita. The final episode of leaving Sita doesn't make sense unless you look at it from the point of view of Ayodhya (citizens) asking Rama to leave his wife.

For the record, Rama has always deeply loved Sita. He never took any other woman for his wife. After his estranegment, Rama's suffering is as equally harsh as was the suffering of Sita.

In ancient India, women longed to have a husband like Rama - somebody who is a devoted son, even if he is not a devoted husband. These values are changing with the modern times. Nothing wrong with that, but please look at Ramayana with the right perspective.

To this date, I have never heard a story which is sweeter than this- the most ancient epic.

PS : Please exercise your creativity, and do not sacrifice your freedom for the sake of offending some hard-religious nuts.

Hi Kiran,

Just wanted to say thanks for your comment! I agree with what you wrote - from Rama's point-of-view, he was genuinely following his duty, genuinely following a right path. That's what makes the story so tragic.

I think most people are genuinely trying to do right from their point-of-view. I think Valmiki's message was, among others, that life is hard; even gods suffer when incarnated on the human plane. There's a poignant scene in Valmiki wherein Sita assumes she committed a terrible sin a previous life to deserve such suffering. Surely she (or someone) must have done wrong, she thinks (like Rama, she is unaware of her own divinity). But no, it's just human life. Suffering is as much a consequence of right action as it is of wrong.

Here's a question: if Rama had to banish Sita out of duty, could he have done so differently? Could he have told her he loved her and explained why she had to go? Could he have driven her himself instead of ordering Laxman?

Or, could Rama have considered his duty to Ayodhya inclusive of women? Sita's banishment was predicated, after all, on a dhobi's right to beat his wife for taking shelter in a male relative's house. That cause was made explicit by Valmiki; that is the righteous order Rama saw as his duty to preserve. What if Rama had, instead of banishing Sita, protected the dhobi's wife? Could Rama have decreed that abusing an innocent woman is wrong? What limited Rama's sense of duty to just men? Was it his humanity, or his divinity? (I'd argue the former)

Hi NinaI think you are missing the central essence of Ramayana. I find itvery strange that something so important could be missed.

Ramayana is not just "a" tragedy, it is "the" tragedy. To understandthis, you should first grasp the Hindu way of understanding God. InHinduism, God is not the holy father. Instead, he is understood as theholy son. There is a saying that "God resides in small children".Most of the gods in the Hindu pantheon are represented using childhoodimages. When you do something wrong, Hindu ethics say that yourchildren suffer because of it. If you love your children, you shouldlead a honest and ethical life.

In Ramayana, Sri Rama is the ideal son and he obeys everything thathis parents command. He undergoes a lot of suffering because of hisparents' misdeeds. It is not because of his own volition that Raamagoes to the jungle. I mean, imagine him saying "Dad, Are you crazy orwhat ? I just got married to a beautiful girl, about to rule a richkingdom. Now you want me to go to the jungle and live my entire youththere ? " He just obeys his father and leaves. If you are a christian,you can connect this image with the passion of the Christ. Why didChrist not say "Dude Pontius. You are a blood sucking monster. I willrather go organize guerilla warfare against you than get crucifiedlike a dodo" ? So why did Christ suffer for the sins of the others -because he knows that by doing so, he appeals to the divine sparkinside each human being. This is the same principle with which youshould understand Ramayana.

The sufferings of Sita and Rama are not consequences of their ownwill, they do it as a direct consequence of the misdeeds of thepeople. Imagine Rama just getting back after suffering in the jungleand winning his wife back after a brutal war. (The wife he loves sodearly) He still lets her go because of what an evil citizen says.Instead of punishing him, he obeys his command. The entire citizens ofAyodhya are appalled to see their king and his loving wife separatedbecause of this. They knew that their king was suffering because oftheir own misdeeds. It is the Indian way of retribution. Even inmodern times, why do you think people like Mahatma Gandhi arevenerated in India ? Nobody in India thinks of that washerman as "Man,here is a macho dude. He put his wife in place. How cool". They revilehim because he is the cause of the separation of Rama and Sita.

Now about the way Rama treats Sita, it cannot be done in a more humanemanner. If he takes her himself and ditches her, do you think she'dhave beared that pain ? She wouldn't have agreed in the first place.But, the greatest sacrifice Rama has done is to let his twin sons gowith Sita. Being the king, shouldn't he be conscious that he shouldhave a heir ? Imagine him doing the donkey-job of governing andgetting back to a solitary life at home. But he left his twins to thecare of Sita because he knew that the children are necessary for themother and vice versa.

If you would like to feel empathy behind these scenes, I suggest youlisten to the music of Thyagaraja. His lyrics are in Telugu (mylanguage) but I think you can find translation in English. Thyagarajathinks of Rama as his son and his music-lyrics are about the repentingof the misdeeds he has done in his life. This is the right way ofunderstanding Ramayana.

In Hinduism, seperating Rama and Sita is considered as one of thegreatest sins. So much, in fact, that the name Rama should not beuttered in isolation. It should be uttered "Sri Rama" or "Sita Rama"where "Sri" is the name of Sita/Lakshmi.

Now, I'd like to confess that I am not a believer. I am just 24 yearsold (a graduate student) who is more of an atheist. I do think thatthere are several male chavunist ideas embedded in Hindu epics. Also,the epics were constantly rewritten throughout history. But, pleasedon't take my word and consult with real historians about theseissues.

CheersKiran

Hi Kiran,

I really appreciate your thoughtful explanations.

> To understand> this, you should first grasp the Hindu way of understanding God. In> Hinduism, God is not the holy father. Instead, he is understood as the> holy son. There is a saying that "God resides in small children".> Most of the gods in the Hindu pantheon are represented using childhood> images.

In case you think I am a Christian - I am not. But, since you useChrist for both comparison and contrast, let me add that Jesus, likemost Hindu gods, is often depicted as a baby or child.

> So why did Christ suffer for the sins of the others -> because he knows that by doing so, he appeals to the divine spark> inside each human being. This is the same principle with which you> should understand Ramayana.

Ironically, that is how I understand it - but for me the centralcharacter, the primary sufferer, the hero, is Sita. Her infinitesuffering combined with her infinite love makes her a goddess.

> He still lets her go because of what an evil citizen says.> Instead of punishing him, he obeys his command.

Again I ask: what about the dhobi's wife? Why didn't Rama hear her?Why didn't he consider her wishes? I would greatly appreciate asincere answer to this question.

I do like the moral message your interpretation implies, that everycitizen must behave morally because if even one man misbehaves, theking/god will respond, and not in a good way. (I think Catholics havea similar idea, which has filtered down into jokes like, "every timeyou tell a lie, the Baby Jesus cries" or, "every time you touchyourself, god kills a kitten".) Nonetheless, "blame the dhobi" onlygoes so far - a king's responsibility is to lead as well as to obey.

> Now about the way Rama treats Sita, it cannot be done in a more humane> manner. If he takes her himself and ditches her, do you think she'd> have beared that pain ?

If Rama had taken Sita himself, it would have been more painful forRama. Your excuse is akin to a man abandoning his woman withoutexplanation and saying, "if I'd done it in person it would have beenmore painful for her." If Rama's behavior were isolated to Rama - ifmen hadn't been abandoning their women like cowards for millennia -then I'd consider the possibility of Rama's decision being "humane."But your rationalization is the oldest trick in the book (literally)and it's common to billions of men; nothing godlike about it. That iswhy those old blues songs fit so perfectly with Sita's story.

> She wouldn't have agreed in the first place.

Sita loves Rama completely. She's demonstrated over and over she willdo anything for him. She'll suffer in captivity, she'll kill herself,anything. That is the point of the first 2/3 of the Ramayana. Sita istested over and over, her love is pure. If she'd known Rama's wishes,she would have walked back into the forest on her own. But instead oftelling her, Rama leaves Sita to imagine she has committed a terriblesin in a past life. Nice.

> But, the greatest sacrifice Rama has done is to let his twin sons go> with Sita.

I'm not arguing that Rama didn't suffer - he did. He made decisionsthat made everyone suffer: Sita, himself, Luv and Kush, and all hisfemale subjects. Rama did what he thought was right. He did his duty.His story gives us an opportunity to examine the meaning of duty,what right and wrong really mean, and especially our human limitations.

Thanks again,

--Nina

Hi Nina

Primarily, you would ask me why did Rama not take the complaint ofDhobi's wife into consideration. As I look at it, it is not a disputebetween two parties. It is a wish of the society towards Rama and hetakes it as a command. Let me not get into the defensive posture oftrying to validate everything that is written in scriptures. I have nosuch desire.

It is true that the position of women in that time is way worse thanit is currently. The impression that "Rama is sheltering a defiledwoman" was a collective judgement of that society. Taking his subjectsto be equal to his parents, Rama obeys their command. The issue wasnot that of a dispute - I wouldn't be surprised if there were severalwomen in that society who took the side of the washerman. Through thesuffering of Rama and Sita, the society learns that they have done aterrible wrong. It is Rama's way of ruling his kingdom. If you thinkit is too idealistic or stupid, well, that's it.

About your impressions on past life, maybe you understood the idea ofKarma in a wrong manner. Sita never has any doubt that she is the oneinside the heart of Rama. The question is only about their separationand she's pained by it. She also knows that this separation isinevitable. Hindu logic says that every situation has a cause, so whatSita was doing was an introspection of the journey of her soul. BothRama and Sita "know" that they love each other and also that theirseparation is inevitable. Also, Sita was never "tested by Rama" forthe purity of her love. She was tested by time on her own characterand she emerges victorious.

About why Rama asked Lakshman to leave Sita instead of doing ithimself, I am too young to answer that question. Maybe, he was a jerk,or maybe he was wise. I don't know. If you have understood Ramayanafrom the right point of view, you wouldn't think the sufferings ofRama and Sita as separate, and that they suffer due to society and notdue to each other.

Please look at my blog post which I think will clear a fewmisconceptions on the ideas of Karma. I do not have much informationbeyond that, I am afraid.

CheersKiran

Hi Kiran,

> If you have understood Ramayana> from the right point of view,

Is there only one right way to understand the Ramayana?

I am not trying to negate the interpretation you share. I am familiar with it, and I think it's a good one.

But there are other ways to look at the story, as those Manushi articles I sent point out. There are also the academic compilations Many Ramayanas and Questioning Ramayanas. My interpretation isn't even particularly original:http://www.indiatogether.org/manushi/issue108/nabaneeta.htm

I genuinely appreciate your explanations though. You have taken more trouble than most to describe your point-of-view lucidly, and that helps me.

> you wouldn't think the sufferings of> Rama and Sita as separate, and that they suffer due to society and not> due to each other.

Well, I think they suffer due to the mere fact of being human. It goes beyond even "society." We can say that Rama and Sita lived in a more misogynistic era, that the will of Rama's subjects today might not be so cruel. Yet men and women still break each other's hearts, even as they struggle to do right. It doesn't matter how enlightened our laws - our collective or individual will - become. Heartbreak remains part of the human experience, no matter how "right" we are.

There are 10 kinds of people: those who read binary, and those who don't.

Thanks again,

--Nina

Dear Nina

Ramayana is a work of art. And thus, the freedom of appreciating it iscompletely upon the beholder. When I say the "right way" to understandRamayana, I mean understanding the right Ramayana. It is a text whichwas edited multiple times. What is the Ramayana you want toappreciate/criticize. Is it the work of Valmiki or the interpretationsattributed to it in the middle ages ? (500 AD - 1000 AD). Whathappened in India was that the position of the women got muchdeteriorated during the middle ages.

The manushi article has all the fervor but I think it is missing themark. Valmiki didn't say that Rama is the ideal "male" (what is such athing anyway). The closest thing to such a conception is expressed inthe character of Krishna in Mahabharatha.

I will try to rephrase the Karma principle in non-binary :) Imaginethe numbers 1-2-3-..9-10-11-.. Now imagine your vision was clutteredto look only at the last digit. What would you see1-2-3-..9-0-1-2-3-.. This looks like a circle right ? That is theproblem with several western criticism about the Karma principle.

What Karma principle says is that, when you got to a "0" from a "9" itis actually a "10". Even though you may be totally ruined in oneaspect of life, there is another new dimension that just got added toyour life. Also, in due time, you would reach "19". Without going to"0" this would not have been possible.

When Rama got separated from Sita, this is exactly what she wasthinking. You are definitely at freedom to importune the emotions ofheartbreak etc to the story of Sita and Rama, but Valmiki didn't haveany such meaning. As far as his Ramayana is concerned, Rama and Sitanever got divorced. They never even had a difference of opinion (thinkabout idealistic)

RegardsKiran

Hi Kiran,

Have you read the Penguin India Ramayana translated by Arshia Sattar?I have read several Ramayanas (unfortunately I'm limited to Englishtranslations) and it is by far the best, the most authoritative.Sattar found the oldest Valmiki manuscript available and translateddirectly from Sanskrit to English, omitting her own opinions andcommentary except for her outstanding introduction.

I admire Valmiki. He was no sexist. He was a genius. The Uttara Kandais extremely sympathetic to Sita.

> You are definitely at freedom to importune the emotions of> heartbreak etc to the story of Sita and Rama, but Valmiki didn't have> any such meaning.

I beg to differ. Here's an excerpt from page 667-668 from Sattar'sPenguin India Ramayana:

"Sita was overwhelmed with grief when she heard Laksmana's cruelwords and she fell to the ground in a swoon. When she recovered, hereyes filled with tears and she said to Laksmana in a sad voice, 'Thisbody of mine must have been created for grief, Laksmana! You can seethat I am overcome with sorrow today, that I am the very embodimentof pain! I must have done something really terrible in my last life.I must have caused the separation of husbands and wives. "'How could the king have renounced me when I have always been sogood and virtuous? I even lived in the forest and bore all kinds ofhardships because I have always served at Rama's feet. How can I livein a hermitage now, separated from all the people I love? Who can Italk to about this terrible grief that I must bear? What shall I sayto the sages when they ask me what I did wrong? What reason can Igive for the king forsaking me?....."

This is an explicit description of heartbreak. If you don't recognizeit as such, consider yourself fortunate - it can only mean yourheart's never been broken.

> As far as his Ramayana is concerned, Rama and Sita> never got divorced. They never even had a difference of opinion (think> about idealistic)

Indeed, Rama and Sita never divorced. Sita loved Rama until the endof her life. The moment she detached from him, her human incarnationended.

Legal divorce and "difference of opinion" are irrelevant to thestory. Heartbreak isn't about difference of opinion. It is about afailure of courage and love.

> I will try to rephrase the Karma principle in non-binary :) Imagine> the numbers 1-2-3-..9-10-11-.. Now imagine your vision was cluttered> to look only at the last digit. What would you see> 1-2-3-..9-0-1-2-3-.. This looks like a circle right ? That is the> problem with several western criticism about the Karma principle.

No need to explain the digital cycles - I understood them the firsttime, my line about binary was a joke.

I'm not criticizing the Karma principle. I am pointing out that Sitawas so heartbroken she imagined she'd sinned in a past life. She wasso limited by her humanity she forgot she was in fact a goddess.

Best,

--Nina

Hi NinaMy knowledge of Ramayana is limited to the endless stories told during my childhood. I have not read any formal version of Ramayana. I have however read "Raghuvamsa" of Kalidasa in original sanskrit with english translation. But again, that work is purely the genius of Kalidasa. I do not believe there is an original manuscript of Valmiki. Most probably, there was never even a Valmiki. I may sound blasphemous, but I think the original Ramayana is a collective work of multiple bards.

I also think you did not understand the Karma philosophy yet. It is a must before you appreciate the Upanishads, Ramayana or Mahabharatha. Secondly, Indian philosophy does not create a distinction between men and gods. Each person is on a journey : men->gandharvas->devas->prajapathi->brahman (God) I might have got my order messed up.but Indian philosophy says each individual soul is the same as the universal soul (you might have already known this). So, Sita is no different from any other woman. Each woman is a goddess.

About the dialogue between Sita and Lakshmana, it is the surface level dialogue of a mother to her child (lakshmana is like a son to sita). In Freudian terms, I think it is called displacement mechanism. As humans, no person is compelled to behave like a saint, even though she knows the depths of philosophy. In your language, you might call this being human. But as I said, Indian philosophy makes no distinction between being human and being divine.

Sita and Rama did not get divorced. Not only did Sita love Rama till forever (not only till the end of her life) but even Rama did not cease loving Sita. After all, they are the personifications of the male and female energies of the universe.

Please try finding a verse from Ramayana in which Sita complains "Why did Rama stop loving me ?" Renouncing her company is not the same as stopping to love her. Renunciation is a sacrifice.

It is normal in western world to make fun of religious and sacred figures. Jesus has been mocked in all the ways possible. No surprise here. The poor curry Indians (I am one) who leaks emotions from all pores cannot understand it or is not still there.